Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and ive another question for the THEORY- in every animal species the level of intelegence,say from a single cell organism all the way up to a dolphin or whatever is the most intellagent animal,are all very closely toghether-but there is a massive leap between mans intellegence and the smartest animal- so if evolutionis the way then would'nt their be many more animals nearly at the same level as us
No. There is no reason to think this would be the case.
It appears that the evollution of a large human brain was made possible by another change that you might think was totally unrelated to brain capacity: the strength of our jaw muscles.
Your skull, and the skulls of other animals, are made of several different bones that fuse together during development. If you've ever handled a human baby and noticed the soft spot , or fontanelle, in its head you will know what I'm talking about.
Our nearest relative, the chimpanzee, has jaw muscles that are many times stronger than human jaw muscles. In order to support these jaw muscles, the bones in the skull of the chimpanzee must fuse much earlier in development that the bones in a human skull.
When our remote ancestors (and fossils are available) developed weaker jaw muscles, probably based on dietary changes, they no longer needed to have these massive skulls that fused at a young age. With skulls that didn't fuse as early, the skull no longer constricted the growth of the brain, and pre-human and human brains got bigger and bigger, and gave us the ability to make more and more neurological connections.
I don't know about you, but to me this is way more interesting and impressive than "god did it".
its true my knowledge of mutation is little or none but there is still no evidence that shows that one species can change into an entirely different species (or correct me if im wrong)-
genes may mutate and maybe sometimes for the better but that dosnt meen fish are goin to start growing lungs and legs and stuff
Actually, you are wrong in precisely the way you predict.
For instance, there are fish that have evolved lungs and legs. Some of them still exist, but most of them turned into reptiles and amphibians.
There were also land mammals that had four legs and later returned to living in the oceans. They evolved into the mammals that you may have heard of called whales. If you look at the skeleton of a whale, you will see that they still have the skeletal structures for legs.
You may have also heard of archaeopteryx, an early prehistoric bird that had feathers, but also had teeth, like the dinosaurs it evolved from.
Baket, I fail to understand your continuing and willful ignorance about the TOE and other scientific facts. Why do you claim that no life exists except here on earth? Yes, Mars and Venus and other planets have environments that we consider hostile, bit that wouldn't prevent life from arising there. There are many creatures on earth that survive in conditions that seem incredible. The marine life that lives on volcanic vents in boiling sulfurous water, for instance. Or the life form that lives in the lake enclosed underneath a glacier in Antarctica. It lives in a lightless, oxygenless, high salinity, subzero temperature environment. That's a NO light, NO air, salty, super-cold home. Gosh...sounds rather like the ice buried on Mars, doesn't it. In case you think I'm making it up, google "Blood Falls Antarctica".
Go ahead, surprise us by learning something. I dare you. Or are you afraid to evolve with the rest of us?
Actually the first life on earth evolved in a harsh oxygen free environment, and even today there are other examples on earth of life evolving in harsh environments, so that tells me that life could actually exist on other planets.
Quote:
If there is a harsher place to live than a hydrothermal vent, it hasn't been found yet. Pitch darkness, poison gas, heavy metals, extreme acidity, enormous pressure, water at turns frigid and searing—this seafloor environment seems more like something from deep space than from our own deep sea.
Yet amazing communities of life exist at hydrothermal vents and the so-called "black smoker" chimneys that, given the right conditions, rise above them like erupting stalagmites. Blind shrimp, giant white crabs, and a variety of tubeworms are just some of the more than 300 species of vent life that biologists have identified since scientists first blundered upon this otherworldly community two decades ago. More than 95 percent of these species are new to science.
No. There is no reason to think this would be the case.
Well, I think you badly mishandled that question because we do know that Neanderthals may have been just as intelligent if not more so than modern humans.
No. There is no reason to think this would be the case.
It appears that the evollution of a large human brain was made possible by another change that you might think was totally unrelated to brain capacity: the strength of our jaw muscles.
Your skull, and the skulls of other animals, are made of several different bones that fuse together during development. If you've ever handled a human baby and noticed the soft spot , or fontanelle, in its head you will know what I'm talking about.
Our nearest relative, the chimpanzee, has jaw muscles that are many times stronger than human jaw muscles. In order to support these jaw muscles, the bones in the skull of the chimpanzee must fuse much earlier in development that the bones in a human skull.
When our remote ancestors (and fossils are available) developed weaker jaw muscles, probably based on dietary changes, they no longer needed to have these massive skulls that fused at a young age. With skulls that didn't fuse as early, the skull no longer constricted the growth of the brain, and pre-human and human brains got bigger and bigger, and gave us the ability to make more and more neurological connections.
I don't know about you, but to me this is way more interesting and impressive than "god did it".
thats a great answer-monkeys have bigger jaws thats why were so intellegent -bravo
i find it very boring -the whole of life didnt come from an amazing-all pervasive-all powerfull-all loving-supreme controler-the emboidiment of love consioussness and joy-the supreme mystic and controller- the freind of all living entitys-all mighty-eternal ,blissfull ,full of knowledge-purest of pure-king of all kings-master of the senses-posseser of all opulances in full-name,strenght,beuty,power,wealth,renunciation,tran csendental to material nature-limitless- supreme personality of Godhead
it actually came from two little specs - wow how interesting
Actually, you are wrong in precisely the way you predict.
For instance, there are fish that have evolved lungs and legs. Some of them still exist, but most of them turned into reptiles and amphibians.
There were also land mammals that had four legs and later returned to living in the oceans. They evolved into the mammals that you may have heard of called whales. If you look at the skeleton of a whale, you will see that they still have the skeletal structures for legs.
You may have also heard of archaeopteryx, an early prehistoric bird that had feathers, but also had teeth, like the dinosaurs it evolved from.
what you say is no evidence at all-whales are made that way so wher them dinosaurs
what you say proves nothing
thats a great answer-monkeys have bigger jaws thats why were so intellegent -bravo
i find it very boring -the whole of life didnt come from an amazing-all pervasive-all powerfull-all loving-supreme controler-the emboidiment of love consioussness and joy-the supreme mystic and controller- the freind of all living entitys-all mighty-eternal ,blissfull ,full of knowledge-purest of pure-king of all kings-master of the senses-posseser of all opulances in full-name,strenght,beuty,power,wealth,renunciation,tran csendental to material nature-limitless- supreme personality of Godhead
it actually came from two little specs - wow how interesting
God is himself the proof of One substance. Is this Richard Dawkins' view? One substance surely is the ideal reasoning for the consciousness at an Image's End.
Oh lord, doeable. Such an empty little cutsy video. Well, here goes...
One: open-minded scientists do not, and have not, ever denied the POSSIBILITY of a Godly Creator. But once that option's presented as an hypothesis, we'll have to see at least some credible evidence, and those rules do not allow for ambiguous, hopeful, controversial or anecdotal evidence.
On the contrary, good science deals with the measurable, and "There! That was a neat lightning bolt. So, there MUST BE a God, right?" really doesn't cut it. I'd hope you agree. Becasue if that's all you require as proof, I've got a sure-fire combined cancer, athlete's foot and baldness cure to sell you.
Two: you cannot use the logic inherent in scientific methods against science, and then conveniently drop that same logic in the next sentence where you present a non-scientific and totally illogical Godly version. You need to be consistent at the least.
Yes, taken simplistically, the Laws of Thermodynamics do not allow for the creation of energy out of nothing, but only in the classical physics forum. Quantum physics has already bypassed those laws, just as Newtonian physics do not cover the behavior of light, gravitation and other troubling but observable phenomena.
It's exactly why Einstein came to his conclusions and yet left a few questions unanswered. Also, you didn't read all (or any...) of Hawking yourself, now did you? You're letting others do all the conclusionary thinking for you, but let me assure you: they're selectively quote-mining Hawking, easily proved. Just crack his book "A Brief History of Time" for a true presentation.
So.... are you happy that the video you provided is outright lying, and can be shown to be doing that? Really?
Also, you're showing your education's age and limitations as regards the creation of the universe. There's more than just a lone Big Bang hypothesis now. For instance, it's also speculated that we're the possible result of the collision of two existing universes, creating a new one, or that we're the re-born offspring of a previously existing universe that collapsed on itself. There's some good theories that our own universe can only expand so far before gravity will pull it back into itself, and the whole process will happen all over again.
Just why this lack of a concrete conclusion right now, on demand, requires an inconceivably large and impossibly capable uber-Creator to explain it is beyond me. Especially when that infant-level mythology explanation falls so short in it's explanations. That's simply a fallout position that sidesteps any further consideration of more complex ideas.
One can then also ask, given your faux logic above, where the Creator came from. Is He made of energy or paper mache'? If energy, where did it come from? It's always so cute that the theist's argument falters right about then, and they conveniently default to "Welllll............... God was always there!". Yet they insist on clinically pure logic when rebuking the scientific side.
Which is it, doeable? Who gets to be excused from logic in this argument, and why do they get that free ride? Finally, as a rationale for a major life belief system, to confidently affirm as absolutes the things your video merely suggests, is pretty lame. Better to label them as "hopeful", "wishful", "desperate" and "unsupported" at best.
But as "absolute" and "true" and "proof"? Not so much. Sorry; try again.
your asking me where did God come from and telling me that my answer will be hes always been there-but isnt that what einsteins been telling you all along-yes God is an energy-His enrgey pervades the whole universe and this energy cant be destroyed
i think its alot more logical to think that all this design has a designer-the answer dosent have to be complicated the question itself is simple- to think that all this happened bye chance is far more illogical IMO.
what you say is no evidence at all-whales are made that way so wher them dinosaurs
what you say proves nothing
My god, folks are trying to argue basic science with someone who can't even write a coherent sentence and you can't figure out why they don't get it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
